An Inconvenient Smokescreen

[Moglet]

Desperate urge to have a short rant.

RTÉ screened Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" tonight. I watched it largely out of interest to see what picture it painted, especially as it's a film that has been associated with a great deal of hype, and because it concerns me that people who are new to the climate change controversy might take it as "truth" without questioning its validity, or further investigating the claims made during the course of the film.

I found it to be an egregiously emotive piece, and potentially quite damaging, since in my considered opinion (based on my own research of related issues to date) it actually clouds many of the problems that our species will be presented with as a consequence of climate change.

What annoyed me most about the film was that it claimed to present itself as having a solid scientific grounding. If Mr. Gore wants to play the science card, then he needs to play by the rules of science and include all factors, conditions, and observations in order to posit a theory. There are many instances that I could quote where good ol' Al failed to do so, but the simplest illustration is this.

Mr. Gore claimed in the film that we can reduce our carbon emissions to zero. By the very fact that we are not plants, we derive the energy we need to live by consuming food. One of the food groups from which we need to derive energy is sugars. Energy is released to us through oxidation of those sugars, and one of the products of that reaction is CO2. Ergo, we produce CO2 as a consequence of the biological processes that keep us alive.

Argument needs work, Al. Wanna play the science card? Use rigorous scientific method!

[Roboframer]

TFG Comments from 2006.

http://www.thegrumble.com/showthread.php?t=8311

[Bill Henry]

His Tubbiness, to my mind, is a simpering idiot. There are all kinds of rumors that he fired some of the researchers for their having come up with contradictory data that did not support his thesis.

I am always very suspicious when government or a quasi-government group tries to meddle around with science.

[Moglet]

There's no doubt that a great deal of thought went into the scripting of the piece, but I despised the way it was designed to emotionally manipulate audiences, and the way it based many of these manipulations on "partial truths."

e.g. "Rainfall is increasing." True.

"It's causing havoc through changed precipitation patterns." True.

No mention whatsoever about the fact that increased precipitation also means increased cloud cover. Clouds reflect radiant energy from the sun. Ergo, increased cloud cover works against increases in global temperature.

Also, there were some downright howlers:

For example in one breath, Mr. Gore dramatically announces that when the Arctic Ice cap melts, the fact that there will no longer be ice to reflect the suns rays, the Arctic ocean will be responsible for absorbing more head energy than anywhere else on the planet (or words to that general effect). Shortly after, he then produces a map of ocean currents, expounding about how important they are in drawing the heat away from the warmest parts of the planet around the equator, and swiftly brings up the rear with concerns about the ocean conveyors shutting down thus precipitating the superfast onset of a new ice-age.

I ask you....

[Odems]

Starting to hamster blankets......

[Bill Henry]

I posted this on The Grumble this morning:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Tinkering with Earth's climate to chill runaway global warming - a radical idea once dismissed out of hand - is being discussed by the White House … the president's new science adviser said Wednesday.

"Shooting sulfur particles (like those produced by power plants and volcanoes, for example) into the upper atmosphere,… would be "basically mimicking the effect of volcanoes in screening out the incoming sunlight," Holdren said.

[It] would "try to produce a cooling effect to offset the heating effect of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases," Holdren said.

*******

Am I missing something?

Have we been spending billions of dollars to scrub sulfer dioxide pollutants from the air only to be told that it is good for us? When will the Surgeon General tell us that smoking is healthy?

It’s comforting to know that geoengineering is now going to be managed by a gubmint bureaucracy.

Wait, I know, let’s ask his porkitude, Al Gore! He’s the “go-to” science guy.

I need a drink.

[Moglet]

Make room at the bar for me, Bill...